Standing Committee B

[Mr. Eric Martlewin the Chair]

Schedule 2

Barred lists

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 121, in schedule 2, page 35, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
‘(3) Referrals made by the Secretary of State under this paragraph will be subject to scrutiny by IBB prior to automatic inclusion of an individual on the barred list.’.—[Mrs. Miller.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Eric Martlew: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:No. 120, in schedule 2, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
‘1A (1) This paragraph applies to the decision-making process of IBB.
(2) IBB must refer to a code of practice, to be issued by regulations, prior to including an individual on the barred list.
(3) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (2), a code of practice is—
(a) that which is issued by the Secretary of State by regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure,
(b) composed after consultation with senior representatives from—
(i) the police service;
(ii) the probation service;
(iii) the Child Protection Service; and
(iv) the Crown Prosecution Service.’.
No. 133, in schedule 2, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
‘1A (4) IBB cannot include a person under the age of 18 in the children’s barred list without the right to representations.
(5) IBB must make a referral for therapeutic services, as specified in regulations, for a person under the age of 18 included on the children’s barred list after representations have been heard.’.
No. 122, in schedule 2, page 37, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
‘(3) Referrals made by the Secretary of State under this paragraph will be subject to scrutiny by IBB prior to automatic inclusion of an individual on the barred list.’.
No. 123, in schedule 2, page 37, line 9, at end insert—
‘6A (1) This paragraph applies to the decision-making process of the IBB.
(2) IBB must refer to a code of practice, to be issued by regulations, prior to including an individual on the barred list.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), a code of practice is—
(a) that which is issued by the Secretary of State by regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure,
(b) composed after consultation with senior representatives from—
(i) the police service;
(ii) the probation service;
(iii) the Child Protection Service; and
(iv) the Crown Prosecution Service.’.
No. 134, in schedule 2, page 37, line 9, at end insert—
‘6A (1) IBB cannot include a person under the age of 18 in the adults’ barred list without the right to representations.
(2) IBB must make a referral for therapeutic services, as specified in regulations, for a person under the age of 18 included on the adults’ barred list after representations have been heard.’.

Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Martlew. I understand that it is your first outing in such a Committee; we are lucky to have you. [Interruption.] The whole Committee obviously agrees.
I shall carry on where I left off. Automatic barring without the right to make representations will result from the most serious sexual offences against children and vulnerable adults, such as the rape or sexual assault of a child under 13 in the case of the children’s barred list, or inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity from a person with a mental disorder in the case of the adult barred list. Automatic barring with the right to representation will result from a further list of serious sexual and violent offences, as well as offences relating to the supply of drugs to children. It will be evident from those examples that convictions or cautions for such offences are in themselves evidence of a risk of harm and justify an automatic bar, in the interests of safeguarding vulnerable groups.
More broadly, amendment No. 120 suggests that the decision-making processes of the independent barring board be set out in a code. Paragraph 13 of schedule 2 allows regulations to specify the operational details of how the IBB will carry out its functions. We envisage that the regulations will specify how the IBB will gather evidence, and will deal with representations by the individual, and the processes for verifying and considering the evidence and representations.
The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. Under the Bill, we have followed generally accepted principles for the delegation of powers. According to those principles, secondary legislation is used for subordinate provisions in cases where the overall legislative framework is clearly in the Bill. Secondary legislation is also used where flexibility is needed to ensure effective implementation and where ability to respond to changing circumstances is required—for example, in respect of the future development of children or the vulnerable adults work force. It may also be used for operational, administrative and technical details that are not normally set out in primary legislation.

Sarah Teather: Before the Minister leaves the topic, may I pick up on the issue of the possibility of administrative error, which I raised with him this morning? He will recall that a few months ago there was big scandal in the media about the Criminal Records Bureau mixing up people’s identity and mistakenly identifying individuals as having convictions. Does he concede that something similar could happen under the Bill? As there is no appeal process, what processes are being put in place to make sure that if someone’s identity is mistaken, the problem can be corrected?

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. As I envisage it, it will be the role of the IBB to receive direct representations from people who feel that there has been a mistake. The IBB has the power to remove a person included on the list as a result of errors—so, yes, it will take that kind of information on board. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) makes a very good point about ID cards, which will be of great assistance to the work done under the Bill. They would reduce the amount of time that it would typically take the CRB to receive a disclosure by three weeks.
Anyway, getting back to the amendment, I believe that the negative procedure is the right approach in this context. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agrees, because the regulations will deal with matters of operational detail within the framework created by the Bill and provide for changes to respond to future circumstances as a scheme is phased in and becomes established.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 would ensure that no one under 18 would be automatically included in the children’s barred list and the adults’ barred list, respectively. I am pleased to say that I have some good news for the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on this group of amendments. I agree with the Opposition on this principle, and the Government’s policy is that no under-18s would be included on either barred list automatically. Instead they would be dealt with under a discretionary process and given the right to make representations before the IBB takes its decision. The IBB will, as with all discretionary cases, need to make a judgment on whether the individual poses a risk to one of the groups and whether it is appropriate to include them on either or both barred lists. We have explained that clearly in another place and also on Second Reading.
We intend to make the provision in regulations, which will specify prescribed criteria for automatic barring. It would not be appropriate to do so in the Bill, because we will specify other provisions relating to age in regulations—for example, that minimum barred periods will be shorter for under-25s. I also explained that to the hon. Lady on Second Reading. It would be inconsistent to have one age provision in the Bill and other similar provisions in regulations. This kind of detail is commonly dealt with in regulations, but I am happy to put on record the fact that we intend to make those changes.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 would also require the IBB to refer anyone under 18 years old whom it chooses to bar to therapeutic services, which would be specified in regulations. The proposal would require referral to service providers such as the national health service, local authorities, children’s social care services or appropriate charitable organisations. Unfortunately, that is inconsistent with the IBB’s primary role of maintaining the barred lists, which is what the Bill is about. It would also be unhelpful if an IBB referral to the therapeutic service provider was made at the end of the process. The IBB decision is based on information from the police, sector bodies, employers and courts, any or all of which could advise the individual to seek medical or psychiatric help at earlier stages or therapeutic services. To require a referral of juveniles upon barring does not seem to be the most effective way to help them and would add a process, when routes are already established to gain access to that kind of support, such as the child and adolescent mental health services, and local authorities are required to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment to a Division.

Maria Miller: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Martlew, and look forward to serving under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for his responses to the arguments that were put forward by myself and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). It was useful to get clarification from the Minister on these issues, although it was concerning to hear that the IBB has no discretion about people who are referred to it from the Secretary of State. Obviously, that is how these things have been proposed. Perhaps it could be viewed as being inconsistent with the arm’s-length approach, which the Secretary of State was at pains to stress in January.
I am rather disappointed that the Minister feels that it is inappropriate to define the code of practice in the Bill, although I was glad to hear that it will be subject to regulations. It is important that such bodies are clear and transparent in how they operate, and we should do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case. The Minister suggested—I hope that I understood him correctly—that the code of practice will be proposed by way of the negative procedure. If that is the case, it is a concern. Everything to do with the Bill has been of great concern to the House, and Members would want to have every opportunity to debate the issues in great detail—[Interruption.] It sounds as though someone disagrees with me from a sedentary position. I must take issue, because this is a matter of great concern to many constituents throughout the country and many hon. Members want to know the details of how the organisation will work. Many of the organisations and processes that are currently in place are simply not working as they should and we must look for the correct level of scrutiny.
I shall touch briefly on amendments Nos. 133 and 134. It was good to hear that the Government are taking heed of the amendments, and I hope that that is a sign of things to come on other amendments. It is worth pointing out that we have not always clarified Bills through other processes, such as regulations, and we must ask ourselves what the point of debating the Bill is if, first, the House does not debate it in detail and, secondly, the details are not articulated in the body of the Bill. On Second Reading, I asked when that became the regular way of doing things and whether it is helpful to hon. Members when discussing Bills or to those who administer Bills. We should always aid the debate of legislation and it is not helpful to debate Bills, which will become Acts, if the details are not laid down in them.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister has some sympathy with the amendment, but I must press him to reconsider his stance on the use of regulations instead of including the details in the Bill, so that we can debate them in the House.
Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD) rose—

Eric Martlew: Order. I am afraid that that was a winding-up speech on the amendment, but I shall use my discretion and allow the hon. Lady to speak.

Annette Brooke: I really do welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Martlew. It will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I want to make a few brief points. Liberal Democrat Members are still confused about the automatic barring. If there are no representations and no appeal, how can there be a check on whether there is an error in the listing? Will the Minister please answer that, so that we know where we stand?
On amendments Nos. 133 and 134, I am pleased that there will be something in regulations because the point is important. I notice that the Minister in his amendments specifies under-16s later on, but I want to quit while I am ahead and accept that the details will be in regulations.

Parmjit Dhanda: I assure the hon. Lady that it is not our intention that the IBB will be an all-seeing, monstrous beast. I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Brent, East that, if someone is on a barred list because they have committed, for example, rape of a child—we are talking about the most serious crimes for which offenders receive an automatic bar without the right of representation—but says that they did not commit the crime and are not in prison and the IBB then receives correspondence from that person, it has the right to take that person off the list and admit that it made a mistake. That is what we envisage it would do.

Annette Brooke: I think my hon. Friend and I are both relieved to hear that answer.
I am disappointed about the therapeutic services point. I moved an amendment to the Children Bill 2004, which would have covered the health authority, local authority and the police, but I could not persuade the then Minister that that was appropriate. I wonder whether there will ever be a time in this country when everyone who needs therapeutic services will actually be referred to them. I am sure that I shall revisit the issue in yet another guise, but I am disappointed because the same points were made in relation to the Children Act 2004 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, yet we still know that young people are not getting the treatment that they need. I hope that the Minister will consider that in his wider role, because it is important.

Maria Miller: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 50,in scheduleÂ 2,Â pageÂ 35,Â lineÂ 21,Â leave out sub-paragraph (a).

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in schedule 2, page 37, line 16, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).

Maria Miller: The second string of amendments to schedule 2 consists of amendments Nos. 50 and 52. Those amendments would change the Bill so that there would be no automatic bar on reference fromthe Secretary of State without the opportunity tomake representations first. That follows the same theme as before. Amendment No. 50 would remove the obligation to place directly on to the barred list those who are referred to the IBB for consideration for barring. Amendment No. 51 places a duty on the IBB to inform relevant organisations that a person is under consideration for barring. The amendments are therefore obviously linked.
As the Bill stands, the IBB must automatically bar an individual on referral. As we discussed this morning, the threshold for that referral is the belief that somebody has undertaken an activity construable as inconsistent with holding a job relating to vulnerable adults or children. We have rehearsed the arguments on why that is the appropriate threshold for referral and the Minister has made clear his view. On the strength of the threshold, an individual can be put forward to be automatically barred from the list until the case is reviewed. It is entirely possible that there are other meanings, and the Minister might want to clarify the position, but that is the way that the Bill reads now.
I should like to know why the Bill is worded that way, however. Obviously, we want to remove individuals from settings where there is potential for harm, but there are some clear consequences that would ensue from that procedure. When the new legislation is enacted, there could well be a great many people who are referred to the IBB because of a lack of understanding and clarity on the nature of the threshold for barring. We could end up with a situation in which many people are proposed for barring and are put on the list, but then need to have their cases reviewed because their cases are believed to be unsound. That could undermine the credibility of the IBB.
The amendment attempts to achieve what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill, but differently. It might be desirable for individuals to be put forward for potential barring, but it is not desirable that they continue in situations that would potentially cause vulnerable adults or children to be exposed to unnecessary risk. However, is it absolutely necessary to put them on the list straight away?
Amendment No. 51 would ensure that even when somebody is being considered for barring, employers would be aware of the situation and would be obliged to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of vulnerable adults and children. We would have to consult various bodies on the operation of the amendment in practice. However, those operational details could be incorporated into the copious volumes of regulations and codes of practice that will follow the legislation. One can anticipate that employers would take the stance that individuals should be suspended while they are being investigated by the IBB. However, I should like to press the Minister on whether we should consider anonymity for individuals who are under referral, until a ruling has been made.
Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify that point, because taking the course of action that is proposed could cause unnecessary complications in the procedure. If he would explain a little more fully how it might work in practice and why the amendments are not required, I should be most grateful.

Parmjit Dhanda: I think that, all in all, the hon. Lady is doing a decent job of scrutiny. I do not mean to patronise her, but she has got it wrong on this particular area, which is why I am hoping that she will not press her amendments to a Division. I can assure her that there is no danger of somebody who is in the work force being automatically barred as a consequence of a referral. I therefore hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
The automatic inclusion provisions apply only to the prescribed criteria—convictions or cautions. Where there are allegations against someone in the workplace, such as a teacher in a school, once a referral has been made to the IBB that person will not be suspended or stopped from working. They will have a right to make representations. I can assure the hon. Lady that she has slightly misread the Bill in that respect, so I hope she will not press her amendments to a Division. It is a complex Bill and I can understand why she may have drawn her conclusion, but I can reassure her that what she outlined is not the case.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 52 would remove the provisions in paragraphs (2) and (7) to schedule 2 stating that the IBB would include individuals in the barred lists as a result of automatic barring offences where the individual is given a right to make representations. Our intention in making provision for automatic barring with a right to make representations and a right of appeal was to afford the maximum protection to vulnerable groups by immediately removing the group of people who had committed a range of serious offences—I must emphasise that we are talking about serious offences—from positions where they could cause harm to children or vulnerable adults.
At the same time, we will ensure that the system is fair by providing a right to make representations to reflect the fact that in these cases an assessment of risk should be made by the IBB following barring so that there is a possibility that such an individual may be removed from the list. I am talking even about the most serious cases. We envisage that unless the representations that the individual makes clearly demonstrate that they did not pose a risk of harm, the IBB would not remove them from the barred list.
Once the IBB has decided to retain an individual on the barred list, there would be a right of appeal to ensure that any mistakes in findings of fact or law could be rectified. If we did not have such a provision, fairness would dictate that the IBB would have to provide a right to make representations before barring and effectively treat the offences under a discretionary route. That would reduce protection for vulnerable groups. The provision is a key element of the barring scheme and of ensuring that we are able to provide the safeguards that vulnerable groups deserve. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment. I hope that I have been able to help clarify the reasons behind the Bill as it stands.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for clarifying that. It is reassuring to know what is and what is not the intention behind what is included in the Bill. I feel that the use of language in the Bill and the over-complexity of the Bill makes its interpretation a little questionable. Will he consider the many people who will have to interpret the Bill’s content and how we can make it easier and more straightforward?

Parmjit Dhanda: I think that is why the point that the hon. Lady and Members made about communication will be so important. We will ensure that we take such action to ensure that that kind of confusion does not occur.

Maria Miller: I want to make a final point on this matter. The process is complex; perhaps it has to be complex. I reiterate the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made earlier about people being included on the list automatically, even when there is potential for error, because the rules of the game must be clear when we communicate the end product of the Bill to people who are affected by it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in scheduleÂ 2,Â pageÂ 36,Â lineÂ 13,Â leave out ‘child’.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in scheduleÂ 2,Â pageÂ 36,Â lineÂ 27,Â at end insert—
‘(5) Any guidance issued under this paragraph must prior to implementation be approved by Parliament through regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’.
No. 49, in scheduleÂ 2,Â pageÂ 38,Â lineÂ 9,Â at end insert—
‘(5) Any guidance issued under sub-paragraph (4) must prior to implementation be approved by Parliament through regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’.

Maria Miller: This group of amendments is relatively straightforward. I shall be interested to hear the Under-Secretary’s response, because this subject was discussed in the other place.
Amendment No. 29 focuses on removing the discrepancy on conduct involving pornography concerning adults and children in the two parts of schedule 2, as was discussed in the House of Lords. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 relate to defining inappropriate conduct inschedule 2. The amendments are all about better defining conduct that might prove prejudicial against individuals and prevent them from working with children or vulnerable adults. Like many of our amendments, they are intended to clarify, probe and therefore strengthen the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 would remove an inconsistency identified by many interest groups and Members of both Houses of Parliament. Currently, there is a provision relating to child pornography and relevant conduct that might bar people from working with children, whereas the measure relating to relevant conduct in relation to vulnerable adults mentions all pornography, without the qualifier, “child”. It is for the IBB to assess whether conduct relating to pornography is inappropriate. The Bill does not state that possession of pornography would, in itself, lead to barring, but we need to take some time to understand this issue. I was interested to hear that the Government have not tabled an amendment on this schedule, even though there was a heavy indication from Lord Adonis that one would be tabled on Report, primarily because he felt that there was great merit in this argument.
The difference between the two elements of the schedule, relating either to children or to vulnerable adults, needs to be removed, because—I am sure the Under-Secretary has been briefed on this—there is a genre of pornography that depicts adults as children or babies. The caveat in that part of the Bill is at best confusing and does not provide the clarity that we need. It is irrelevant whether the pornography that is deemed to be used inappropriately relates to children or adults; if it results in behaviour that causes concern, the IBB should be able to consider it in whatever form it takes.

Parmjit Dhanda: I may have more good news for the hon. Lady. As she has said, there has already been a lot of discussion about this difficult issue in the other place. Lord Adonis advised on Third Reading that further analysis was needed to agree the precise words to assure that the requirements for both lists provided the necessary protection to both groups. He made it clear that that would involve considering both provisions for both children and adults to ensure that we deal with all the situations that we wish to cover.
As we expected, the issue is particularly complex, for some of the reasons that the hon. Lady mentioned. We have yet to resolve it, but we remain committed to doing so. I know from discussion here and in the other place that there is agreement, but we must ensure that amendments do not create a situation whereby a large number of individuals are referred to the IBB for legitimate behaviour relating to adult pornography, which is not illegal and the use of which will not generally be of concern to the IBB.

Tim Loughton: I appreciate that this is a thorny subject and that the Minister’s colleagues in the Home Office have recently undertaken a consultation on the use of extreme images on the internet, to which I made a submission. Will he acknowledge that, while adult pornography is a separate issue, the downloading, possession and possible acting on influences of hardcore images involving violence against both children and adults—murder in many cases—is inappropriate behaviour that should be covered in the Bill? We need to extend the definition of pornography to such material. I believe that the Minister’s colleagues in the Home Office are rightly looking to bring in offences to clamp down on it.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman effectively highlights some of the complex issues that need to be considered. We do not consider that accepting the amendments would be the best way to achieve our policy aims, so I hope that hon. Members will not press them. I can commit to return on Report with something that I hope all hon. Members will be able to support.

Maria Miller: I think that is a bit disappointing. Lord Adonis was quite clear on the matter in his response in the other place. If we receive assurances at one stage of the Bill that are not carried through as promised by a Minister, it creates a certain level of uncertainty. I understand the complexity of the matter and the need to get the wording right, but if we are to move forward constructively we need to ensure that the indications given are followed through.

Shona McIsaac: I listened to the hon. Lady’s speech on the amendments, in which she indicated that Lord Adonis said that a suitable amendment would be brought forward on Report in this place. The Minister has reiterated that. We are not yet on Report, so I cannot understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment.

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I did not quite catch the Minister undertaking that he would bring something through on Report. Maybe I have got that wrong.

Parmjit Dhanda: I think I made it perfectly clear, maybe more than once, that I will return with an amendment on Report.

Maria Miller: Well then, I think that that is fair. I look forward to that at a later date. The matter is important and needs to be clarified, and Lord Adonis gave an undertaking that we would review it in Committee. We are disappointed that the Government have not been able to move forward on it yet, but the Minister is in a difficult situation. I look forward to discussing it in more detail on Report when the Government have had a chance to give us detail. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in schedule 2, page 36, line 27, at end add—
‘(5) In this paragraph—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 44, in schedule 2, page 36, line 41, at end add—
‘(4A) In this paragraph—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.
No. 45, in schedule 2, page 38, line 23, at end insert—
‘(4A) In this paragraph—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.
No. 33, in clause 27, page 18, line 4, at end add—
‘(7) In this section—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.
No. 35, in clause 28, page 19, line 4, at end add—
‘(10) In this section—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.
No. 37, in clause 31, page 20, line 32, at end add—
‘(8) In this section—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.
No. 39, in clause 33, page 21, line 33, at end add—
‘(8) In this section—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.
No. 41, in clause 36, page 25, line 5, at end add—
‘(9) In this section—
“harm” means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another;
“development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development;
“health” means physical or mental health; and
“ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.’.

Maria Miller: The amendments relate to the harm test, which is an important provision in the Bill setting out behaviour that will qualify somebody to be considered for barring. It is important that the definition should be clear in our minds and that those who interpret the Bill have all the information that they can have, truly to understand the actions that they need to take and the standard of proof that is required, to ensure that the legislation is put forward in the way that is intended.
However, there is no clear definition of “harm” in the Bill as it stands. When the issue was raised in the other place, correspondence on the matter followed from Lord Adonis. Before I comment on that, I shall explain the amendment. It is intended to define “harm”, which means
“ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another”.
“Development” means
“physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”,
“health” means “physical or mental health”, and “ill-treatment” includes
“sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.”
Harm and the harm test are fundamental planks of the legislation, and references to them appear throughout the Bill, in schedule 2, and in clauses 27, 28, 31, 33 and 36—hence the long string of amendments in the group, to ensure that we cover all references to the concept in the Bill. The amendment seeks to define “harm” as a key term in the Bill. How can parents, employers and social service practitioners be expected to know their responsibilities under the Bill if such a fundamental concept as harm is not clearly and unequivocally defined?
As I mentioned, Lord Adonis said in correspondence on the issue that the common-sense definition of harm would stand. However, as I am sure the Minister is aware, common sense has no legal meaning. By leaving the Bill as it is drafted, we risk creating confusion and inconsistency in the system, and potentially make more work for lawyers, which we would not want to do. We are anxious to make the Bill as simple and clear as possible. That sentiment not only was articulated when the Bill was discussed in full in the other place, but has been expressed by a number of pressure groups. The concept requires further definition.
The group of amendments use an existing and well-understood definition of harm, namely that which is contained in section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989. That definition and its reference to “development” has been said perhaps to be more appropriate for children than for vulnerable adults, and the Minister might want to pick up on that in his response. However, it is not necessary for all the elements of the harm test to come into play at once. Therefore, we on the Conservative Benches feel that it would be entirely appropriate to include this reasonably lengthy definition of harm in the Bill, so that those who interpret it know what we mean. Although some parts of the definition would perhaps not be deemed appropriate for all the vulnerable groups for whom the Bill is important, it would be a catch-all for most.
We tabled the amendments in the spirit of highlighting that point and implore the Government better to define such a key term, to ensure that the system works. I again point out that the Bichard report’s overriding message was that it is vital to ensure clarity in such areas, but there are too many loose ends in the Bill to ensure that clarity. I hope that the Minister seizes this opportunity to improve the Bill, to provide that clarity and to make it a more workable piece of legislation at the end of the day.

Annette Brooke: I am concerned about the lack of a definition of harm. I can see that in some ways that might mean that it will have such a wide interpretation that everything could be covered, which in some sense could be useful. However, it slightly offends my logic that we do not know what it includes. I have particular concerns about some issues that were raised by organisations that represent older people. If the personal property or even the personal allowance element of money that is paid in to a care home automatically was withheld from a patient, would that definitively come under the definition of harm? I am not sure that it comes under the definition with these amendments, but I am quite concerned about the financial element when we are talking about elder abuse. Sadly, it often happens that people make friends with an elderly person, visit them in their home and then a few things just disappear. Sometimes it is the price of having some company, which is a really sad state of affairs.
The other subject that was raised by some of the organisations representing the elderly was dignity. It is very difficult to calculate an infringement of dignity in the definition of harm, but dignity is an important principle. This is so difficult to define that I am not convinced that the amendments cover everything that needs to be covered. Therefore, in a sense that is an argument against getting a definition, but on the other hand is the Minister convinced that the Bill will be workable if it is left as it is?

Parmjit Dhanda: Hon. Members are right. This debate lasted for some hours in another place. This group of amendments seeks to provide a definition of harm to cover a range of circumstances in the Bill. They define the term for the purposes of referrals by employers, local authorities and regulatory and supervisory bodies to the IBB. The definition would also apply where the IBB was considering an individual for inclusion in a barred list. The meaning of the word “harm” is clearly central to many elements of this Bill. On that we are all agreed. With that in mind, I fully sympathise with the intentions of hon. Members in tabling the amendments, but they do not take us beyond the point that we have reached already with our proposals for the meaning of the term. I shall explain that in a moment, not least with reference to what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said about elderly people and finance.
As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, the definition used in these amendments is taken from section 31 of the Children Act 1989, as amended by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I would argue that the definition of harm in that section serves a different purpose from the one that we are trying to achieve in the Bill. That section is about care and supervision orders and sets the conditions that must be satisfied before a court grants such an order. The threshold is deliberately defined in that definition as significant harm. We must ask ourselves whether that is what we want to put in the Bill today.
For the purposes of the Bill, however, we want employers, local authorities and others, to refer information to the IBB and the IBB itself to place an individual on the barred list when the conditions set out in the Bill are met. The Bill is concerned with referrals being made and individuals being barred in accordance with the specific thresholds that will underpin the effective functioning of the scheme.
For the IBB to include an individual on the barred list, it must think it appropriate to include them. In other words, the IBB will be required to decide whether an individual’s conduct, or the risk that they may harm a child or vulnerable adult is sufficiently serious for them to be included on the list. The conditions are central to defining the thresholds in a way that is appropriate for the purposes of the Bill, which are different from the purposes of the Children Act 1989.

Maria Miller: Is the Minister saying that he does not want a definition, or that this is the wrong definition? Perhaps he could clarify that. In his response, he is saying that it might be the wrong definition. Perhaps it would help if we looked for another definition of harm.

Parmjit Dhanda: I would be delighted if, during her winding-up speech, the hon. Lady were to suggest another, better definition. I would be happy to consider that during the debate. I shall come to the definition that we are using in a moment. Her definition relates specifically to supervision orders, and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made some good points during debate on earlier clauses about simplicity and the need for people to understand the Bill. We are discussing the usual use of the word “harm”, but I shall elaborate on that in a moment.
If we define the precise meaning of harm as the amendments suggest, there is a danger that we will unnecessarily restrict the circumstances in which an employer, for example, can refer information to the IBB or the IBB itself can consider barring an individual. It is not clear, for instance, whether the suggested definition would allow the IBB to determine whether an individual had harmed a vulnerable adult if they had defrauded elderly care home residents, who the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned. Is that what we want to do? That would be the consequence of the amendment.
The Government believe that it is far better for harm to take its normal meaning, which covers our intentions for the scheme. That includes damage to a child or vulnerable adult’s mental or emotional state as well as physical harm. It will include acts of omission as well as commission. The meaning of the word would not be restricted to physical or indeed any other kind of consequences. In the case of vulnerable adults, it might also include harm incurred through financial loss. With all that in mind, I hope that hon. Members will see fit not to press their amendments, or perhaps they will present a better definition in their winding-up speeches.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?

Parmjit Dhanda: I am afraid that I have concluded my remarks.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for his response on that string of amendments—at least, I think I do. I certainly thank the Liberal Democrats for their support, albeit with some reservations, for the amendments.
As the Minister said, the concept of harm is central to the Bill. We have used the definition from another Bill to illustrate the need to include a firmer definition in this one. I think that all Members would be open to considering alternatives that may cover the issues—

Sarah Teather: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a problem with leaving the definition so broad? I can imagine, for example, a situation in which a bad teacher instilled low self-esteem in a child. Would that count as harm? Unless it is quite tightly defined, there is a danger that, in a whole set of issues, somebody might be eligible for barring. I understand the Minister’s point about wanting the widest possible range of people, but that is quite different from the legalistic way that we expect the independent board to make decisions about who should be barred.

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. It shows the strength of feeling in the Opposition about the issue and the need for the Minister to reconsider it before Report. As she says, the concept is currently used as a catch-all for many different activities.
Again, we must consider what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. We are trying to achieve clarity, and if we fail to do that, we will fail in our duty to protect the people whom we are here to serve—the vulnerable people and children for whom we are trying to provide more protection. I asked the Minister whether he would like to have a different definition rather than this one. I got the impression that he was quite interested in pursuing a further definition. Perhaps he is as uncomfortable with Lord Adonis’s concept as we are.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am comfortable with it. The hon. Lady needs to be aware that, regarding discretionary barring, a risk of harm alone is not sufficient for the IBB to place a person on the barred list. There is an additional appropriateness list set out in the Bill. Together with the normal definition of harm to which we are accustomed in society, that makes this a good rationale for us to move forward.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I still think that it is a broad, catch-all concept that says that anything that constitutes harm can be construed as behaviour that would, if not completely, at least partially, put somebody forward for consideration to be barred.
It is difficult when we are struggling with English in the provision. We have heard from the Opposition Benches and from other groups that a tighter definition of harm may be helpful. Yet the Minister said that it would only ever be part of a decision-making process and that we do not have to worry too much about it. I do not take much comfort from that. If we are going to use concepts and terms within Bills that we are struggling with, let us think about those who are trying to interpret it, who may not have the assistance—

Parmjit Dhanda: Of lawyers.

Maria Miller: Absolutely. A great number of groups in my constituency will be forced to take account of what is in this Bill. They do not have the funds to employ an army of lawyers to go through it with a toothcomb to attempt to understand the minutiae of the provision. The Minister needs to remember for whom such legislation is introduced.
The Minister has heard from the Opposition that concern remains about leaving the concept of harm so broadly defined. It is our intention to return to the matter at a later stage, perhaps when we have had the opportunity further to discuss with him his particular concerns with the amendment in its current form. We will do a great service to many people if we are able to pursue and to receive further clarification on the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in schedule 2, page 38, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
‘(1) IBB must ensure that, on receipt of any information in relation to an individual from whatever source or of whatever nature, it considers whether the individual should be included in both barred lists, in one barred list, or in neither barred list.’.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in schedule 2, page 38,line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

Tim Loughton: I thought I had better justify my existence here today. Amendments Nos. 116 and 54 are probing and relate to schedule 2. My hon. Friend said just now that we are struggling with English in this Bill. This is again a classic example of the way in which many parts of this Bill are opaque in the extreme.
The offending provision is paragraph 11(1) of part 3 of this schedule. Mr. Martlew, if you can make any sense of it, you are a greater man than I am. It reads:
“IBB must ensure that in respect of any information it receives in relation to an individual from whatever source of or whatever nature it considers whether the information is relevant to its consideration as to whether the individual should be included in the barred list.”
There is not a single punctuation mark in that entire sentence, so it is not easy to grasp. When one gets ones head round it, however, it appears to be—in common parlance—stating the bleeding obvious. Naturally, the IBB’s job is properly to consider any information put to it, and to decide whether that information is germane and relevant to subsequent action by the IBB, but the wording of the provision is terribly woolly, which is why we have suggested an amendment that in my view reads much more clearly. As well as containing some punctuation, which is no bad thing, the amendment has the added advantage of including a cut-across between the two lists—the child’s list and the adults’ list—thereby strengthening the Bill.
There are concerns among certain organisations as to whether inclusion on one list should effectively mean automatic inclusion on another list. Some of them would like to see that, and the wording of amendment No. 116 would make it much clearer that the IBB should consider whether the individual under consideration
“should be included in both barred lists, in one barred list, or in neither barred list.”
That is plain and unambiguous, which one cannot say for a lot of the Bill.
Amendment No. 54 refers to paragraph 11(2), which I just cannot understand. That sub-paragraph says:
“Subparagraph (1) does not,”—
at least we have punctuation—
“without more,”—
it looks as though there is a word missing—
“require IBB to give an individual the opportunity to make representations as to why he should not be included in a barred list.”
I have been doing Bills for some years, and I have not previously come across the phrase “without more”. I may be missing something, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us and tell us that the term is perfectly legitimate, so that at least in Committee we may understand what “without more”—without any noun or adjective attached—actually means. I hope that he will also explain why the intention is apparently to prevent individuals from making representations that they should not be included on the list.
I am afraid that this particular part of the schedule is especially woolly and badly worded, and the intention is not clear. The amendments are supposed to be constructive and I think that it is quite plain what we are trying to say. I should like to hear the Minister’s justification of why paragraph 11(2) should remain in the Bill, and his explanation of what “without more” means.

Parmjit Dhanda: Before I set out the unintended consequences of the hon. Gentleman’s probing amendment, regardless of how clear the English of it might be, I am reliably informed that the offending paragraph to which he referred was inserted in the Lords to make explicit what was implied. The Government were responding to pressure to ensure that the Bill stated the obvious, and I shall explain more about what that obvious thing is—we shall probably have some level of agreement on that.
Amendment No. 116 would remove paragraph 11(1) of schedule 2 and replace it with a different provision. Amendment No. 54 would remove paragraph 11(2) of the schedule. Paragraph 11(1) makes it explicit that the IBB is under a duty to consider all information thatit receives in relation to both the children’s and vulnerable adults’ barred lists. IBB experts will then exercise their judgment to decide whether the information merits further consideration in respect of both or one of the lists. The IBB will then give the individual the opportunity to make representations on all the evidence on which it may base its decision, so that the individual might demonstrate that they do not pose a risk of harm to either or both vulnerable groups. 
The provision is important. It was created by Government amendment in another place to make explicit in the Bill what was already implicit. There was much debate about the issue, and all parties welcomed the resultant amendment. Lord Adonis noted that the amendment would ensure proper consideration of cases that are referred from both lists. That is the principle: if an individual is referred to the IBB, they can be considered for both lists.
Amendment No. 116 would replace that provision. The IBB would proceed to full consideration of the case on receipt of any information by gathering evidence and giving the individual the opportunity to make representations, rather than first being able to consider whether the information is relevant. It is important that the IBB can use its discretion to consider information and choose not to proceed to a further stage where, for example, the information is clearly false or malicious. That is why I refer to the unintended consequence of the probing amendment.
Sub-paragraph (2) clarifies that the opportunity to make representations does not arise in every case, as the IBB, having considered some information, may conclude that it does not warrant the individual’s inclusion on the list. If the IBB considers it appropriate to include a person on the list, it must give the individual the opportunity to make representations.
Amendment No. 54 would remove the clarification that paragraph 11(2) provides, but the IBB would nevertheless be required to give an individual the opportunity to make representations in every case when the information indicated a risk of harm. I hope that that provides some clarification for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and that my remarks provide clarity for anybody who should look up the clause. With all that considered, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his probing amendment.

Tim Loughton: Pepper v. Hart comes to the fore if we are required to consider this debate to work out what the legislation means.
I am grateful for what I think is a clarification in part, although I did not hear the definition of “without more”, about which I asked. If the Minister would like to intervene, I would be grateful, because it is not English, let alone meaningful.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall be happy to drop the hon. Gentleman a note to clarify exactly what it does mean.

Tim Loughton: Which suggests that the Minister does not know, I do not know and I do not think that anybody else on the Committee knows, which in turn suggests that the provision is badly written. When he writes to me to define it, after consultation with his officials, who have not been able to supply the definition to him while he has been speaking, he might consider a further amendment on Report to make it clearer. It is patently not clear.
I take on board the Minister’s comments about amendment No. 116 and its unintended consequences. I applaud the sentiment behind his statement and the Lords amendment to discount vexatious referrals, about which we are particularly wary. It is too late to table an amendment, but on that basis, will the Minister reconsider on Report the wording of paragraph 11(1)? It refers to
“whether the information is relevant to its consideration”.
I would have thought that we could find a better word than “relevant”. Information may be relevant to the work of the board or to an inquiry that it undertakes, but is it justified? We need to find a word—not necessarily “justified” but with the same implication—that would clearly give the IBB the power to dismiss vexatious complaints not because they are not relevant but because they are not justified. The Minister and I know what he wants from the clause, but it is still unclear in the Bill.
I have said that the amendments are probing. They have been changed since similar amendments were tabled in the Lords. I cannot remember the original wording, but we might be able to go one step further and make the language of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 11 rather better English and clearer on what they are intended to achieve. I understand what that is, but it is not properly set out.
The Minister has said he will write to me, which means that he will further examine the matter. I hope that that means he might consider an amendment on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in schedule 2, page 38, line 36, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in schedule 2, page 38, line 36, after ‘regulations’, insert ‘subject to the affirmative resolution procedure’.
No. 109, in schedule 2, page 38, line 40, at end insert—
‘13A (6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, make provision as to—
(a) the procedure to be followed for the purposes of removing any person from the children’s barred list or the adult’s barred list; and
(b) the procedure to be followed for the purposes of referring information or individuals to the IBB.
(7) Such provision may include provision as to the time within which anything is to be done.’.
No. 55, in schedule 2, page 40, line 28, at end insert—
‘(7) The duration of the minimum barred period for adults shall be determined through regulations approved by Parliament, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(8) The duration of the minimum barred period for those under 18 shall be determined through regulations approved by Parliament, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’.
No. 111, in schedule 2, page 40, line 28, at end insert—
‘16A (1) If IBB refuses to place a person on a barred list following a referral, the organisation or individual who made the referral may ask for an internal review of the decision by IBB.
(2) IBB shall establish procedures for internal reviews established under this paragraph.
(3) No IBB employee involved with the original decision shall take part in a related internal review held under this paragraph.
(4) Any decision reached by an internal review shall be final.’.
No. 119, in clause 5, page 3, line 11, leave out ‘order’ and insert
‘regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure,’.

Tim Loughton: These are again largely probing amendments, but they follow the principle, to which we like to adhere, of making explicit in the Bill as much as possible and ensuring that anything left to the Secretary of State should be made by affirmative resolution, giving the House sufficient opportunity to scrutinise it.
Amendment No. 30 brings us back to a favourite battleground: the substitution of the word “may” with “shall” on the basis of the preference that I have just expressed. The provisions in part 3 of the schedule are defined as “supplementary” but are actually important and far-ranging. Paragraph 13(1) gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to
“make provision as to the procedure to be followed for the purposes of any decision IBB is required or authorised to take under this Schedule.”
The schedule is at the guts of the Bill, and that is a far-reaching sub-paragraph. It gives the Secretary of State power to change all the procedures that the IBB will follow; that is, all the detail that we have debated and tried to tease out from the Minister. The Secretary of State, if he so wishes, will be able to change that detail by regulation on a whim. He will be able to change the whole nature of the procedures followed to enable people to be referred to and investigated by the IBB. On that basis, it is essential that the Secretary of State “shall” do that by regulations rather than just by order. Contingent on that is amendment No. 31, stating that such regulations should be
“subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”.
We are considering an important part of the Bill that is not just about day-to-day running, so it should be subject to the full scrutiny of the House.
Amendment No. 109 is on a similar theme, stating that the Secretary of State shall, again by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, make clear the procedures
“to be followed for the purposes of removing any person from the children’s barred list or the adult’s barred list; and...the procedure to be followed for the purposes of referring information or individuals to the IBB.”
Such considerations are important. If changes are to be made, we believe that that should happen by regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure if the extra information is not to be put in the Bill.
Under proposed new paragraph 13A(7), the timing must be made clear, too. The Bill does not contain, as with much else, detail of timings. How long will the procedure take whereby information about people is referred to the IBB and various actions are taken against them? If people are put under the spotlight, it is essential that they can expect justice swiftly and fairly. As the Minister said, we are potentially dealing with a great many people, so if the information cannot be specified on the accompanying procedures with the Bill, it must certainly be put in regulations to show that the IBB will deal with the issues in a timely manner. Perhaps he can suggest what would be defined as timely.
I now come to our two other amendments. I shall leave the other to the Liberal Democrats to explain. Amendment No. 55 tries to put more detail into the Bill about timings of the minimum barred period that will be determined again by regulations that are
“subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”.
It also suggests the procedure to be followed on timings for those under the age of 18. I hope that that is clear.
Amendment No. 119 refers to clause 5. It would pin down some detail of how the Secretary of State can be scrutinised. Clause 5(3) gives an enormous power to the Secretary of State. It states:
“The Secretary of State may be order amend that Schedule so as to vary the meaning of—
(a) regulated activity relating to children;
(b) regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults.”
The definition of regulated activity is important. We need to know what occupations and activities are covered by the Bill. Such detail needs to be available at the outset.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to change the whole meaning of regulated activity, which is core to what the Bill wants to achieve. A change can be made purely by order. Again, we believe that there should be regulations subject to affirmative resolution of the House so that matters can be properly scrutinised in Committee in a timely fashion, otherwise we are giving considerable powers to a Secretary of State who may choose for whatever reason to change the ground rules. For example, the IBB might have made a hash of matters and not acted as intended under the Bill. If that were the case, Parliament would need to know about it. Parliament needs to know that the IBB, which has been charged to set up an important initiative and has considerable powers, is capable of getting it right and will not be subject to having its ground rules changed at the whim of the Secretary of State without due scrutiny by Parliament.
On that basis, these are helpful amendments that try to take further the sort of detail that we have been asking for all through the parliamentary stages of the Bill. At the very least, if we are not to have the detail concomitant with the passage of the Bill, we need to know that the Secretary of State will be subject to further full and proper parliamentary scrutiny if he chooses to change definitions and procedures.

Sarah Teather: I have great sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about leaving vast amounts of discretion to the Secretary of State. There is a great danger in leaving so many powers so centralised and I look forward to hearing in the Minister’s reply why this is necessary.
Paragraph 16 of schedule 2 describes a process of review for which someone may apply if they have been included in a barred list. In amendment No. 111 we suggest a similar internal review mechanism for organisations or individuals who refer somebody to the IBB but it decides not to include them within the barred list. The Government made it clear in debates in the other place that they are unwilling to consider any kind of external review mechanism, but we think this kind of internal review mechanism fits nicely within that proposed in the schedule and would not fetter the IBB’s expertise.
I wonder whether this would be an acceptable compromise that the Minister might wish to consider. It does, of course, add an extra balance to the system as many of the decisions proposed within the Bill are highly discretionary. We need some kind of internal quality assurance mechanism, partly to ensure that decisions are made on a consistent basis. We wonder whether this kind of internal mechanism could give organisations the confidence of knowing that they have an opportunity to challenge again if they feel that their concerns have not been heard, but also leave the expertise of decision making up to the body itself.

Parmjit Dhanda: It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Brent, East thinks that the appeal mechanisms in the system are insufficient and that another process is needed in addition to the Care Standards Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, judicial review. Perhaps she will come back on that.
These amendments primarily address the issue of regulations and I should first like to remind hon. Members that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is broadly content with the position set out in the Bill and raised no concerns about the issues covered by these amendments. Amendment No. 30 would ensure that the Secretary of State will make regulations governing IBB decision-making procedures under the provision in paragraph 13(1) of schedule 2. I can assure hon. Members that we intend to make such regulations following Royal Assent. We therefore see no need to specify in the Bill that the regulations will, rather than may, be made. We would argue that a certain degree of flexibility is helpful to allow regulations to be made covering those aspects of IBB procedures that I have described as and when it becomes necessary.
Amendment No. 31 requires that the regulations specifying IBB procedure would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We believe that that would unnecessarily limit the flexibility to adapt these provisions to changing circumstances and would require Parliament to give greater oversight to matters of great detail in relation to the operation of the IBB, which would customarily be left to standing regulations. It is a convention that that would normally be the case. Having said that, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham did mention some specific areas, such as regulated activity, where the affirmative process would be required. Within the context of this, some of those regulations will be introduced by the affirmative procedure.

Tim Loughton: I appreciate that some of these things may be automatically subject to affirmative resolution. However, he has used an often used phrase in defence of his position, which is that our amendments would “unnecessarily limit the flexibility”. Why?

Parmjit Dhanda: First and foremost, before the regulations come into being, we want to have a period of consultation. I believe that we have already said—and I will be corrected if I am wrong—that we are looking for a period after Royal Assent during autumn 2007 for completing the regulations, so that the Bill, or rather the vetting scheme, can be in place during 2008. In order to do that, we will need to go away and extensively consult stakeholders to make sure that we do that appropriately.
We mentioned quite a few areas involving regulation. I accept that there is a lot of regulation in the Bill, but there is detail within it as well. As agreed by those on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the convention is that it will be done in the usual way. The usual way is the negative resolution process. However, I am more than willing to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s case-by-case argument. I have made one such case with regard to regulatory activity. He may feel that there will be specific areas and regulations that should be done in a different way and I would be interested to hear that.
Amendment No.55 would ensure that the minimum barred period would be specified in regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I assure hon. Members that it is our intention to make regulations specifying this period. For the reasons already given, we believe that it is our position to consult on the regulations before they are subject to the negative resolution procedure, and that that is the most appropriate way to ensure general agreement.
On the subject of age, which the hon. Gentleman raised, our current thinking is that those over the age of 25, who have an automatic bar, would be barred for an automatic period of 10 years and those under the age of 25, for five years. However, those are matters on which we wish to consult extensively.
Amendment No. 109 would require that the procedures for removing a person from the barred list and making referrals to the IBB would be specified in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Removal from the list will be a key part of the IBB’s role. Those elements of this procedure that are appropriately specified in regulations will be included in the regulations specifying IBB decision-making procedure. However, we should not seek to limit the IBB’s discretion in carrying out its key function of including or removing individuals from those barred lists.
The second part of this amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the procedure for making referrals to the IBB. The clauses that cover the duties to refer information to the IBB already contain clear tests for the referral. That would place additional burdens on informers and such burdens would achieve little of value.
Those regulations would cover referrals from those who are not under a duty to refer. Placing restrictions on the way that information can be referred might limit the flow of information to the IBB, which could have serious consequences for the protection of children and vulnerable adults.
Amendment No. 111 would allow a referrer, usually an employer, to request an IBB review of a decision not to include someone in the barred list. That would introduce employer oversight of IBB decisions. I am not convinced that employers are best placed to decide whether the IBB has erred, and I am unclear what new evidence employers would have to contribute once the IBB had assembled information from all relevant parties and come to a decision on the case. The amendment would draw employers into initiating an appeals process, which is not a role for them as far as existing barred lists are concerned. They would require significant resources to pursue it actively.

Sarah Teather: The Minister asked me after I sat down whether I felt that the Bill’s appeals process was adequate. He will realise that the appeals process allows only those included on the list to appeal against it; it does not allow someone who has referred a complaint and feels that it has not been satisfied to have that decision reviewed. That is the point that we are trying to make. He might have misunderstood it.

Parmjit Dhanda: I take the point, but I must disagree. Those making the referral will have the right to know whether the person has been barred, but the reasons why they have or have not been barred will not be shared with the referrer for understandable reasons. Some referrals could be vexatious. The evidence might be flimsy. There might be a range of circumstances. We are discussing individuals who have lives to lead. After the IBB has made a decision and expertly weighed up all the evidence, those who made the referral will not necessarily need to pry into it, although I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be best to let them know what the IBB’s decision is, and we intend to do that.
The IBB will have internal administrative procedures to ensure quality and consistency in its decisions. For example, I would expect it to have procedures governing the collection of all the information needed to make a decision and to ensure that the necessary expertise is brought to bear on decision making. IBB members and senior management will establish systems for monitoring and quality control before rather than after notification of decisions.
The Government envisage that the IBB will engage actively with employers on the referral process, so that they know what is required of them and in what circumstances they should refer information. That will be an important part of the IBB’s role in ensuring the effective functioning of the scheme. I hope that I have assured the hon. Lady that the scheme will work well without the amendment.
I turn to amendment No. 119, which would ensure that any changes to the definition of regulated activity are made through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. I reassure hon. Members that the amendment is not necessary, because clause 46(3) already provides for that. I hope that I have provided the clarification required, and I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Annette Brooke: The Liberal Democrats are still not convinced that we have conveyed what we mean by the amendment. I am sure that that is due to its wording rather than anything else. We envisage that a referral from an organisation or individual that does not result in a barring decision should have a right of review involving different people making the decision. That would ensure consistency in decision making. There will inevitably be a lot of people making delegated decisions, internally rather than in a rigid appeal process. There must be checks and balances in the system so that somebody does not fall through the net simply because a particular group did not act. We envisage that the person or organisation concerned would have to prove in some way that they had deep concern.

Parmjit Dhanda: I think I am getting a slightly better understanding of what the amendment refers to. The internal processes of the IBB will be a matter for itself, as it will be independent. Although the hon. Lady’s point is fair, I cannot comment on the internal processes of the IBB. It is important that we have an independent body, making expert decisions. I am sure that there will be a process whereby those who have made a referral can send supporting information to the IBB.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister. We are beginning to get on the same wavelength. I have a genuine concern that something could be overlooked, because there is a lot of information and some vital pieces of it might not picked up by a small panel of people. I hope that the Minister, although he cannot dictate the board’s internal procedures, will give guidance—not written guidance—that he expects a review process and a test of the consistency of the board’s decisions.

Tim Loughton: I heard what the Minister said, which did not surprise me. He used phrases that are common when Ministers are resisting the putting of more detail in a Bill, particularly on tying down the Secretary of State’s ability to exercise the considerable powers of regulation that he is given.
We are in no way trying to limit, as the Minister put it, the IBB’s discretion to carry out its functions. We support the idea of the board and therefore its power to get on with the job that we are tasking it to do. Nowhere in the amendments do we seek to limit the IBB’s discretion. We seek to limit the discretion of the Secretary of State, whose role should be subject to ongoing scrutiny by the House. At every appropriate juncture when he makes and changes regulations, they should be subject to affirmative scrutiny. That is the case in clause 5, which amendment No. 119 has usefully probed.
I remind the Minister that the Secretary of State is being given powers to make regulations that, the Minister says, will be published after Royal Assent. I do not argue about that; it is the case with all Bills. It would be desirable if a Standing Committee could look at the regulations in tandem with the Bill that gives them effect. That rarely happens, and in this case it was even less likely to happen because of the necessary speed with which the Bill was introduced after the Government had been rather dilatory in responding to the Bichard recommendations.
Let us remind ourselves that the Bichard report was published in June 2004. It was only the scandals that hit the headlines at the beginning of this year about paedophiles and other dubious individuals working in privileged positions, particularly in schools alongside children, that prompted the Bill. We welcome it, albeit rather late in the day after the Bichard report. However, the lead time between the Government announcing that they would introduce the Bill and their producing it has necessarily been truncated because of the urgency of the situation. We welcome that.
The point that I am trying to make is that in those circumstances—less so than those with other Bills that have been on the back burner for many years—it would not be reasonable to expect all the regulations to have been done and dusted and thought through. That is why it is important to tease out some of the Government’s thinking, to give us an indication of whether we think that they are going far enough and will achieve the right balance between protection and the civil rights of individuals who are in the frame.
Nothing we are suggesting limits the flexibility of the board to do its job when it is up and running. We are purely asking for checks and balances on the Secretary of State in what is currently a grey area. Secretaries of State might find it inconvenient to have to appear before regulation Committees occasionally. However, it is preferable that they are put on the spot to justify why various regulations are being fashioned in the way that the Government propose than to let those regulations go through without the proper scrutiny that they require.
This is pioneering territory. The board is a new body. We welcome it, but it is particularly important that we get it right. We are not just talking about the initial regulations that the Secretary of State will fashion after the Bill receives Royal Assent; the Bill will also give him powers to change those initial regulations. He can change the regulations for the procedures to be followed, the terms of reference on which certain people are referred to the board and subsequently barred, and the timescale over which they may be barred. He is being given the powers to change an awful lot of things even after he first sets them out in regulations after Royal Assent.
It is important that, where possible, the Secretary of State should ensure that those regulations and subsequent changes to those regulations are subject to full and proper timely scrutiny by the House. That is what the amendments are all about, and that is a point worth making. The Minister is quite understandably trying to give us reassurances about when those regulations would be proposed, but that is entirely irrelevant, given the various points that I have just made. I want to put that on record.
I know that we will not get anywhere if we seek a vote on the amendment, but it is important. These are enormous powers, the manifestations of which both ourselves and the Minister are unclear about at this stage, because the provision has not been completed. That is why we need to make sure that they are scrutinised properly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Barred Persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Tim Loughton: A few clauses are coming up for which no amendments have been tabled. However, there are items of clarification that it would be useful for the Committee to seek and for the Minister to give.
Clause 3 is short. It deals with barred persons. In paragraphs 3(2) and (3):
“A person is barred from regulated activity relating to children if he is—
(a) included in the children’s barred list;”
which we understand and—
“(b) included in a list maintained under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland which the Secretary of State specifies by order as corresponding to the children’s barred list.”
Again, we do not know what that will amount to. We do not know what type of list may exist or are intended by, for example, the Scottish Parliament, which has competence in those areas. I ask the Minister for his comments on the Scottish system.
The development of IMPACT—the computer database—is essential to the process of collating and sharing information. That system will, we hope, successfully identify individuals who should not be working with children or vulnerable adults, so that the required information can be given to the IBB, which will do something about it.
The Opposition are concerned that IMPACT is behind schedule and over budget, which is a common theme when the Government handle computer projects. Originally, it was proposed that the IMPACT scheme would be available by 2007. Soon after, the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) announced that, in fact, it would be ready in 2008.
Subsequently, on 21 April, the Minister without Portfolio, as a Home Office Minister, confirmed what many of us had understood to be the case from Police Information Technology Organisation documents: the full computer system would not be up and running properly until 2010, at the latest—a four-year gap between the Bill and a computer system that will effectively enable it to happen. That is a big worry. What is going to happen in the next four years?
On the Floor of the House, we have just debated concerns over recent revelations about the treatment of people with learning disabilities, particularly the scandals in Cornwall. Problems are happening as we speak. That computer system needs to be able to deal with such instances to ensure that they do not happen in the first place or that such people, when identified, are dealt with appropriately.
I understand that Scotland is steps ahead of us—in many things it is; in others, it is not, including football. The Scottish intelligence database computer system is up and running already, and rather effectively, I gather. Apparently, that system was offered to English police forces as at least a stop-gap measure before IMPACT comes into effect.
The cost of IMPACT, as estimated in the comprehensive spending review, was some £160 million. I think that that figure will be revisited and will accelerate considerably. The cost of transferring or extending the SID system to England and Wales was put at £55 million, and it could be rolled out over 18 months. That roll-out could have started some time ago and been considerably cheaper and quicker.
I have a query about clause 3: what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Scottish Parliament and colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office about the structures operating in those two parts of the United Kingdom? Has he learned any lessons from sharing intelligence and about the systems already in place to bring that about? Are the list systems, and the information feeding into those systems, in Scotland and Northern Ireland superior or lacking compared with the English and Welsh system that we are looking to put in place under the Bill?
It is vital that we have a system that will work across the United Kingdom. There have been many cases of abusers of one description or another easily flitting across borders. There is a problem at the moment with abusers flitting across county authority borders. Let us take the example of foster carers taken on by a local authority in, say, Newcastle. The foster carers fall foul of the local authority because of a degree of abuse that may not quite have warranted a prosecution, or in respect of which there was insufficient intelligence to prosecute, but which should certainly have flagged up serious question marks as to the carers’ suitability to deal with children. They then leave Newcastle and turn up in, say, my neck of the woods, on the south coast in Brighton, and present themselves as willing foster carers to the local authority, which would have no knowledge of their previous background and which may engage their services. That might turn out to be completely inappropriate.
People who abuse vulnerable people—be it children or adults—tend to be quite devious and clever in getting round the system, which is why it is essential that we have a proper and appropriate sharing of information between authorities in our own country and around all the different parts of the United Kingdom as well. It also makes it essential that when the legislation comes into force it is compatible with the measures that are already up and running in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or that are intended to be up and running there. That is particularly the case for Scotland, with the information-sharing system that the police already have in place, which as things stand today is superior to ours. Will the Minister comment on the United Kingdom dimension?

Parmjit Dhanda: As I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke earlier, I am happy to provide a written update on IMPACT. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the working of the vetting and barring scheme is not dependent on the roll-out of IMPACT. There are existing CRB processes that are adequate for the scheme, although IMPACT will obviously help to improve matters.
On Scotland and Northern Ireland, clause 3 provides that a person who is on one of the barred lists or on specified barred lists in Scotland and Northern Ireland is also barred from regulated activity relating to the relevant group in England and Wales. The clause ensures that the scheme will take account of similar lists elsewhere in the UK. That will help prevent anyone who has been listed anywhere in the UK as a risk to children or vulnerable adults from gaining access to work with those groups. I therefore commend clause 3 to the Committee.

Tim Loughton: I hope that my queries will get a slightly more detailed response than that, and that if the Minister is going to write to me he will be able to answer the specific points that I made. He said that the scheme is not dependent on IMPACT and that the existing CRB checks are adequate. Clearly, they are not. Some of the people who were caught in January and who were the cause of the legislation being instigated had committed offences that had not been properly investigated and that were not subject to CRB checks. They were still dealing with children in a neighbouring authority, including in my own constituency. The problem with CRB checks is that they are out of date the day after they are sought and they do not become effective and useful until somebody has actually committed an offence and has become the subject of a CRB check. Lots of people are caught in between.

Parmjit Dhanda: I do not know the exact circumstances of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but the example he gives might well have concerned people on the sex offenders register, and the lack of cross-reference with List 99. There is also a vulnerable children’s list. The whole purpose of the vetting and barring scheme is to amalgamate those registers and lists into two: a barred list to preclude people from working with children, and a list to prevent them from working with vulnerable adults, with cross-referencing between the two.
I accept the point about IMPACT being of great assistance. It is a point that the Minister for Children and Families made on Second Reading in answer to a question posed by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I am happy to give him an update on IMPACT, but the establishment of the scheme is not dependent on it. I do not want to comment on the circumstances in his constituency, but issues in some parts of the country were about the interrelationship with the lists, which is what we are clarifying in this process. I made clear on Second Reading some of the changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A process in Scotland will mirror our operation here, and likewise in Northern Ireland. The schemes will link up to ensure that, if people were barred in one place, they would be barred in another. With that explanation, I hope that members of the Committee are satisfied that the clause can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I want to make just one point about the clause. It is pleasing that the grounds on which an appeal might be made have been expanded slightly. Of course, the appeals apply only under the three categories other than the automatic bar. An appeal can be made on the basis of a fact, which is to be welcomed. It sounds as though it will produce a fairer result. At least it gives some feeling that justice will be applied. However, if facts emerge after the tribunal hearing, will it be possible to appeal on the grounds of new evidence? When the Minister sums up, will he deal with that question?

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall come to that point in a moment. Clause 4 provides for an appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal on a point of law or a point of fact, as the hon. Lady said. A decision of the IBB to include or keep someone on the children or vulnerable adults list was a concession made in another place. Subsection (1) sets out the decisions against which individuals can appeal. They may not appeal against an automatic bar under paragraphs 1 and 6 of schedule 2. Under subsections (2) and (3) of the clause, an appeal can be based on points of law and findings of fact. However, it is important for me to say that an individual cannot appeal against the judgment of the IBB when the facts or law are not in question. When someone has accepted a caution or been found guilty of a crime, for example, we are talking about periods of 10 years or five, if that person happens to be under the age of 25, before the person may apply for a review of his inclusion on a barred list.
Subsection (4) provides for the tribunal to give permission for an appeal. Subsections (5), (6) and (7) set out the actions that a tribunal can take. It may confirm the IBB decision, it may remit the case to the IBB for a fresh decision, it may set out new findings of fact for a fresh IBB decision, or it may direct the IBB to remove the individual from the list. Subsection (8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the procedure of the tribunal and, if appropriate, the award of costs by the tribunal.
Subsection (9) provides that the Court of Appeal will hear appeals on points of law in respect of a tribunal decision. It is of great importance that the right to appeal on points of law should generally be available so that the courts can give guidance on the proper interpretation of the law and avoid inconsistent rules by tribunals. The right to appeal on points of fact ensures that, when a mistake has been made in findings of fact, there is a proper opportunity to revisit the decision. I hope that my explanation has satisfied the hon. Lady. I recommend that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Regulated activity

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Parmjit Dhanda: Clause 5 provides that regulated activity relating to children and vulnerable adults will be set out in schedule 3. Regulated activity is a key term in the Bill. It is activity that will be prohibited for an individual on a barred list. Broadly speaking, it represents work involving close contact with children or vulnerable adults.
The clause will allow the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “regulated activity” by order, providing the flexibility to respond to changes in the work force and in how services are provided. Clause 46(3) provides that any order made under clause 5(3) to vary the meaning of regulated activity must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The definition is key to the scheme. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Regulated Activity

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in schedule 3, page 42, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 125, in schedule 3, page 42, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
No. 126, in schedule 3, page 46, line 34, leave out from ‘adults’ to end of line 35.
No. 127, in schedule 3, page 47, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
Government amendments Nos. 146 to 148.

Annette Brooke: I shall address only amendments Nos. 112 and 113. It is a long string of amendments, and I want to concentrate on our two amendments. They are quite complex but nevertheless important.
The amendments seek to address the concerns that I mentioned on Second Reading about the definition of “frequency”. I have great concerns about it. I have read closely the notes issued by Lord Adonis, and the more I read them, the more I become convinced that there are potential loopholes. If you will forgive me, Mr. Martlew, I will go through the matter in some detail, because I sincerely believe that there is a big potential loophole in the protection of vulnerable people.
It is important to consider the two amendments together and to see the need for flexibility, particularly in monitoring. A consequence of the Bill for flexibility in monitoring is that it could impose a huge administrative difficulty on organisations for one often limited contact. I understand that that is why the clause includes the rather tortuous “frequent and occasional”—to get the right balance so that it does not impose too much bureaucracy. Proportionality and balance are an issue, but if the loophole is present, one would have to err at the end of the day toward less flexibility. I shall consider some examples of what could happen.
It is possible, for example, that a barred individual who has harmed children and poses a risk could get access to regulated activity lasting less than a week. That is the main problem. As I read the suggested regulations, “frequently” could mean once every six months or once a month, but it must be less than a week. If that is accepted and the word “frequently” is included in the clause, I envisage that a holiday play scheme lasting five days could pose a real danger.
I have mentioned unregulated crÃ¨ches, which again, for the most part must be unregulated. Nevertheless, if a crÃ¨che facility were provided at a week-long conference somebody could get quite involved with some of the children. I was particularly concerned when I thought about a youth group going away for a five-day camp. As far as I see it, the definitions here would allow a person who is on the barred list to be involved. It is a question of how much monitoring there is. I am not sure that I would be happy if someone on the barred list went away on a youth camp for five days. I hope that the Minister can be clear about the grouping of days within a week because that is where the concern arises.
I should like to move on to the definition of an occasional basis, which comes under clause 10, and whether a regulated activity provider may use a person not subject to monitoring. There is a problem again because, under the Bill, it is an offence for a barred individual to engage in regulated activity in a regulated position. However, more latitude is given to regulated activity providers who are not required to carry out a check under clause 10(4) when the contact is for less than a week or for less frequent intervals than once per month. That seems rather bizarre, because it is clear that a dangerous banned adult, let us say a paedophile who wishes to access children in certain settings, could exploit the loophole for the monitoring of posts of short-term duration. That might even be in the setting of a children’s home.
The two amendments are meant to be taken together. In a sense, the second amendment on the use of the word “occasional” is trying to loosen things up slightly. I should like the Minister to concentrate on our first amendment, which removes the term “frequently”. By taking a very drastic step, we would remove the possible loophole altogether. I hope that the Minister can look at this again because there is probably a way of closing that loophole in a less bureaucratic manner. I want to be assured that what I am pretty certain is a loophole is closed before the Bill reaches the statute book.

Maria Miller: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 112, 125 and 127. I may also comment on some of the Government amendments too. It does not often happen, but great minds think alike on this. The Liberals and the Conservatives tabled exactly the same amendment in amendment No. 112. That perhaps shows the strength of feeling on this matter. Certainly it was an issue that was debated at length in the other place. Amendments Nos. 112, 125, 126 and 127 would remove the concept of “frequently” from the Bill. Ultimately, the amendments have been tabled to probe further on who the Bill seeks to monitor. Given the strength of feeling on Opposition Benches and among other interest groups, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.
Before the Bill comes anywhere near the statute book, the situation with regard to who should be CRB checked is less than satisfactory for a number of organisations. I know from speaking to teachers in my constituency that they find it difficult to understand the concept of “regular” in connection with those who need to be CRB checked. The current situation causes concern, which was reiterated in the consultation on the matter.
We all understand the Government’s intention in trying to grapple with the concepts of “frequently” and “occasionally.” It is interesting that the Liberals and the Conservatives have come up with the similar solution—it is worthy of the Government’s further consideration—of removing the concept of activities carried out “frequently” and encouraging consideration of the word “occasionally.” I tabled an amendment that would have enabled us to examine further the use of that word, but unfortunately it was not selected. The matter should be considered with this group of amendments to understand fully our thinking.
The probing amendments would remove the word “frequently”. The amendment that was not selected would have enabled people and employers to define what constituted occasional activity in a particular setting. We felt that that was an interesting concept to play with. The Minister jokingly asked me on Second Reading—or perhaps he was not joking—to define “frequently” for him, which we have found difficult to do. The debate in the other place and the subsequent communication from Lord Adonis showed that a number of enormous loopholes are created by such definitions. I think of my own children, who are in a holiday club lasting for five days. It falls into the category that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned and, under the Bill, the people running it would not need to be checked at all. That is a concern.
The amendments are intended to challenge the Government on whether we need the word “frequently” in the Bill. Would it not be simpler to remove it so that monitoring relates to the extensive list of settings and positions in the Bill and so that it is left to local employers, whether schools, youth clubs or whatever, to identify exceptions to the broad need for monitoring and decide when they need exemptions for people who occasionally help out?
Within the many settings to which the Bill will apply, the definition of “occasional” could vary. In some organisations, an individual working with children for five days alongside a member of staff would not cause any problems. As a school governor myself, I have seen instances in which outside organisations have come into the school without ever being left in sole charge of the children with whom they come into contact. There will be activities that do not need to be monitored, but equally there will be circumstances, such as those outlined today, that would fall foul of Lord Adonis’s definitions of “frequently” and “occasionally.” Those terms do not help to clarify the situation.
For clarity and for the record, I say that the amendments that we are considering are not the full set of amendments that we tabled. We recognise the need for people to go into monitored settings occasionally, but there should be an opportunity for local employers to decide for themselves whether that should be monitored.
I shall give the Minister another example of the need to be aware of the implications of the Bill. There is a very successful community school in my constituency that has an open access policy for parents. How should its head teacher interpret the Bill? Will parents going on to the campus of the school regularly—on more than five consecutive days or more than once a month—need to be monitored? According to the Bill, it appears that they would need to monitored, although I am not entirely sure that that is the intention, nor is it absolutely necessary.
The intention behind the amendment is to consider the issue from the point of view of those who have to implement the legislation on the ground—in our schools and our playgroups, and in other settings as defined in the Bill—to ensure that they have a clear idea of who should be monitored and that they are empowered to identify those groups that feel should occasionally be allowed within the school. However, we would force governing bodies and other groups to think that through for themselves. If the Minister could give us a positive response on those issues, it would be a most welcome addition to the Bill.

Parmjit Dhanda: I can say with a degree of confidence that the issue is complex. There is no easy answer, and I think that we can all understand the reasons why. Before I comment on the amendment, I should mention something that we shall come to with schedule 4. Areas of activity such as the one that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned might not fall under the category of regulated activity, but instant online checks for such activities could provide us with new solutions. Where a group want to make checks, even though an individual might not be seen as a frequent supervisor or visitor, online checks offer a way of doing so properly.

Maria Miller: I understand the Minister’s point about online checks but, to take the example of the summer camp that my children are attending, I have no way of knowing the names of the people who will be looking after them. As a mother, I assume that the organisation has checked the people who will be looking after my children for five days this week, albeit for only two and a half hours each day. There is no way that I would know the names of those people to them check online. Surely that will be a potential problem.

Parmjit Dhanda: I will not go down that line until schedule 4. I was using a different example, in which a group that has an arrangement with somebody under which it employs them infrequently wants to be sure that they are checked. However, there is no one-size-fits-all policy, so perhaps I should not have opened the issue up for debate. We could discuss a million different examples, but I am sure that we will return to the issue in greater detail on schedule 4, as the online register opens up real opportunities.
Amendments Nos. 112 and 125 to 127 focus on a key element of the Bill—the definition of “regulated activity”, which underpins the effective functioning of the new vetting and barring scheme. It is important that we get the definition right, and I welcome the opportunity that the amendment affords us to debate the issue. The group of amendments focuses on a central element of the definition of regulated activity, namely the frequency test.
The intention behind the group of amendments is to disapply the test in a range of circumstances, so that specified activities in relation to children and vulnerable adults are classified as regulated activities, regardless of whether they are carried out frequently. For example, certain activities that bring an individual into close contact with children and vulnerable adults—such as teaching, caring, advising and supervising—have to be carried out frequently to be defined as a regulated activity.
An individual who was not engaged in those specific types of activity but who still worked in a specified setting—for example, a care home or a school that gave them access to children or vulnerable adults—would also have to be carrying out their duties frequently for that to be classified as a regulated activity. The amendments have major implications for the circumstances in which a barred individual may engage in regulated activity during which they are subject to monitoring and the employer has to check their status in the scheme.
On the frequency test and the scope of the bar, I recognise the concerns of hon. Members that if an activity—for instance, teaching children, caring for a vulnerable adult or rebuilding a school history block while having access to pupils—is carried out on an occasional basis, it might fall outside the definition of regulated activity. I recognise also that risks are associated with a barred individual working with children or vulnerable adults, even on a one-off basis.
I should like to reassure hon. Members that protecting children and vulnerable adults from those who work with them is the most important consideration of the scheme. However, it is important also that we do not place unreasonable burdens on employers, managers and employees, as well as on volunteers—the latter are important. We should not make the lives of individuals impossible. We want the scheme to be proportionate.
I have some examples: should an aerobics teacher on the children’s barred list be charged with an offence if a 16-year-old turns up occasionally for their class, which is otherwise made up of adults? Should a TV producer on the barred list be charged with an offence if they instruct a school group that comes to the TV studios to learn how TV is produced? Should a nurse in a care home barred from working with children be charged with an offence if they treat in an emergency a child visitor who has fallen over in the care home? I am sure that hon. Members will agree that those are not easy questions with which to grapple.

Maria Miller: May we return to the example of the TV producer and the visit to the studios by a school group? That is not a controlled setting. Will the Minister help me: would the regulations apply in those circumstances? Presumably, they would if the teacher was going to the school, but as we have discussed, methods could be put in place to allow that to happen on an occasional basis.

Parmjit Dhanda: The point that I was trying to make to the hon. Lady was that teachers going to a school and contact with children in a studio are both issues tobe debated in relation to prescribing regulated or controlled activities because, either way, children could be put in a vulnerable position. Placing severe or absolute restrictions on barred individuals criminalises them even though they did not seek to work with children or vulnerable adults.
It is clear, however, that determining the scope of the bar in relation to the frequency with which an activity is carried out is a complex issue, and we shall continue to listen to the concerns of hon. Members in forums such as this one. We shall continue also to work with key stakeholders. I am not pretending that there are easy answers.
I should like also to consider the amendments in the context of their effects on the requirements on individuals to be subject to monitoring and on employers to carry out appropriate checks. We need to consider carefully the requirements that we impose on employers and managers to make checks, and on employees to go through the scheme.
To extend the requirements on an occasional basis to individuals who teach, care for or engage in other activities mentioned in paragraphs 2(1), 5(1), 1(3) and 5(4) of schedule 3 would place unreasonable burdens and bureaucracy on employers and managers, and might create a barrier to the effective provision of services. For example, an adult gym might not be able to include a child attending with their parent because their staff have not been through the scheme, and hence checked. However, under schedule 4 employers will be able to check an individual’s status if they are considering whether to permit an individual to teach, care for children or vulnerable adults or otherwise engage in an activity mentioned in paragraphs 2(1) and 5(1) or an activity on an occasional basis caught by parts of schedule 3.
In the light of those considerations, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw the amendments, which do not answer the question either.

Maria Miller: The Minister rightly said that it is not our desire ever to put unreasonable burdens on employers, but implied that the amendments would put such burdens on them. I put the contrary argument: simplifying the system would ensure that employers knew exactly where they stood in respect of the need to monitor individuals.
I am thinking particularly of schools; it has been widely reported that schools are finding it, or have found it, difficult to understand who should be CRB-checked and who should not, given the current requirement for those regularly in contact with children. Surely the opposite of what the Minister is talking about could happen; instead of the burden being unreasonable, things might be simplified for employers.

Parmjit Dhanda: We could say that, but if the frequency test had been removed and a parent visited the school to give a one-off lecture on her career as a lawyer, she would fall foul of the process and have to be cleared by the scheme. That would be an added problem for the school; that parent would have to go through the vetting and barring scheme.

Annette Brooke: All the examples given by the Minister have been about a one-off occasion rather than the examples on which I was concentrating. My concern is about what happens when consecutive days stack up within a week, and I should like the Minister to address my examples. He gave the example of the online check. However, the hon. Member for Basingstoke is right; if the organiser does not do an online check, the parents or relations of anybody involved in the activity would have no knowledge of that.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, and I do not disagree. We could stipulate an activity that happens three times a week or three days a month. We have said that, typically, more than one day a month and a contract of more than a week defines frequency. Equally, the hon. Lady could argue for an intermittent period of less than a week. That becomes apparent when we take a closer look at the issue, and I am happy to do that.
However, I say to her that removing the frequency test would place a burden on schools, which, for example, would have to check everybody who turned up on the one-off basis that I described. I do not believe that the removal of the frequency test is the way forward.

Maria Miller: If the Minister is considering the issue again, may I remind him of my amendment No. 128, which I was not able to discuss today? It reads as follows:
“Based on an assessment made in reference to guidance issued by the Secretary of State the employer will clearly set out what constitutes occasional activity for which monitoring is not necessary in relation to that specific setting.”

Eric Martlew: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is out of order; her amendment was not selected.

Parmjit Dhanda: Thank you, Mr. Martlew; I was about to start probing an amendment that had not been selected. I do not want to digress down that path, but if it were down to employers to set the level of frequency, we—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should enter into correspondence. I am quite happy to consider what the hon. Lady was saying.
I return to the earlier point about the TV producer. If the producer were barred and the frequency test removed, the producer could not instruct children either in school or elsewhere. That is another example of how things would work if we did away with the test.
I turn to Government amendments Nos. 146 to 148, which also deal with the definition of regulated activity. They are intended to ensure that an individual under the age of 16 engaging in regulated activity is not required to be monitored and that those permitting or supplying such individuals to engage in regulated activity are not required to check. That will ensure that 15-year-olds who go on two weeks’ work experience at a primary school, for example, will not be required to go through the scheme and that the school will not be required to check.
Given the importance of clarifying the definition of regulated activity, I commend the amendments to the Committee. I hope that hon. Members will consider this useful debate as well as my desire to reconsider the issue and hold further discussions with stakeholders before Report, and will withdraw their amendments.

Annette Brooke: I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the Minister. I shall press the amendment to a Division simply because I feel that it is so important. I welcome his statement that he will reconsider it, but a Division on the issue will give further force to the concerns of Opposition Members about the loophole that we are convinced exists in the Bill.
I know that the Minister said that we could reconsider the issue in different forums, but I must point out that there is only Report. We will only have one more go at this, and that is why I shall press amendment No. 112 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Parmjit Dhanda: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in schedule 3, page 43, line 7, leave out from ‘children’ to the end of line 8.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 179 to 182.
Amendment no. 118, in schedule 3, page 46, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
Government amendments Nos. 183, 184, 144 and 145.
Amendment No. 113, in clause 10, page 6, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if—
(a) the activity is a regulated activity by virtue of paragraph 1(1) or 5(1) of Schedule 3, and
(b) B is entitled to engage in a regulated activity mentioned in that paragraph only on an occasional basis.’.

Parmjit Dhanda: The amendments are designed to improve the Bill’s coverage by ensuring that the definitions of regulated activity relating to children and requirements to check are focused where individuals have the greatest opportunity to harm children.
Amendment No. 178 is a minor drafting amendment. Amendments Nos. 145 and 179 will bring requirements for Welsh child minders into line with those for child minders in England. AmendmentsNos. 180 and 181 will ensure that CAFCASS officers and family proceedings officers in Wales and their managers are covered by the bar and the requirement to check. As those officers are likely to have unsupervised contact with children, the amendment ensures that the functions of such officers and their managers are covered by regulated activity.
Amendments Nos. 144 and 182 ensure that those who act as deputies on behalf of children and vulnerable adults are within the scope of the scheme. Amendment No. 182 adds deputies to the definition of regulated activity in schedule 3, paragraph 4(1) in relation to children. That means that a person who is barred from working with children cannot act in that capacity. Amendment No. 144 means that those appointed as a deputy are treated in line with other positions such as those of local councillors and charity trustees in situations in which there is no regulated activity provider.
Amendment No. 183 clarifies the drafting to ensure that operators and administrators of the information sharing index are engaging in regulated activity in relation to children. Amendment No. 184 ensures that where an activity is carried out by a member of a group of children and possibly others on behalf or under the direction of an adult engaging in regulated activity with the group, the group member will not be engaged in regulated activity. That will ensure that school prefects, who supervise other school pupils, will not be required to be subject to monitoring and the school will not be required to check their status.
My hon. Friend will later be moving an identical amendment in relation to vulnerable adults. Those amendments set out real improvements in the coverage of this Bill. They will increase the protection afforded to children and ensure that the coverage is appropriately targeted. I commend those amendments to the Committee.

Maria Miller: I should like to speak briefly to amendment No. 118 within the string, which is tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. It is an important amendment because it relates to local authorities. I will just read out the part of the Bill that it relates to. It states that one set of positions that would be monitored is that of
“an executive of a local authority”.
The amendment would in effect remove that line from the Bill in order that members of an executive of a local authority would not be included in the monitoring process. There are provisions within that particular section of the Bill that already cover any member of a local authority who discharges any educational or social services function, so that line is unnecessary.
In the previous string of amendments, the Minister was at pains to suggest that we should not place unreasonable burdens on employers. I am not clear why we would want to single that group out to be monitored, given that any people within that particular group that had authority with regard to vulnerable people and adults would already be covered in the previous sub-paragraph (2)(a). I hope that he understands why we have tabled amendment No. 118. We feel that it is not a helpful clause to have within the Bill.
In my own local borough council, there are only a few people within the Conservative-controlled authority executive who have any duties to do with either vulnerable adults or young people. As the Minister is no doubt aware, the local borough council has limited influence or policy or financial obligations towards those groups pf people. Anyone who is involved in activities regarding those groups of people will be caught in a previous section of the Bill. It is an unnecessary burden on local authorities.
Returning to the example of TV producers not being able to teach children because they are barred, it may not be entirely equitable that some councillors may, perhaps, stop being involved in activities relating to vulnerable adults or children and may not be able to be members of executives.

Parmjit Dhanda: Amendment No. 118 would mean that an individual who is a member of an executive of a local authority that discharges any educational or social services functions for a local authority should not be engaged in a regulated activity. That issue was raised in the other place. I reiterate the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, vice-president of the Local Government Association, in saying that no member of a local authority cabinet should be allowed to serve on that body if they are on the barred list. An individual may not have direct responsibility for social services or education functions, but he may help to set the overall strategic direction of the council and he will have the opportunity to influence, at least indirectly, the lives of children in the local area.
I understand that it is unlikely for an individual to have no responsibility for education or social services functions. If an executive member sitting on an executive with education or social services functions requested information or required access to particular material or individuals, that would provide the opportunity for close contact with children.

Maria Miller: At the risk of opening a can of worms, as was hinted at on Second Reading, if local authority executive members should be monitored because they may have access to certain information or materials or have close contact with children or vulnerable adults, perhaps hon. Members should consider whether they should be monitored. This is the start of what could be an expansive process. If local authority members who have no direct responsibilities for such matters should be monitored, why should not Members of Parliament be monitored? Will local authority members not ask that question?

Parmjit Dhanda: The point about local authority members having influence over social services and education functions is interesting and comes from the vice-president of the LGA, so we need to take it seriously. The Bill as drafted takes the right approach on the issue.
Amendment No. 113 would change the focus of the exception in clause 10 so that employers of individuals engaging in a specified activity in a key setting would have to ensure that the person is subject to monitoring. Those employing individuals to carry out specified activities outside key settings could do so occasionally without that person being subject to monitoring. I hope that hon. Members will take on board what I have said.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 179, in schedule 3, page 43, line 23, at end insert—
‘(5A) Each of the following, if carried out in Wales, is a regulated activity relating to children—
(a) acting as a child minder so as to give rise to a requirement to register under section 79D of the Children Act 1989;
(b) an activity which would give rise to such a requirement if the child in relation to whom the activity is carried out were under the age of eight.
(5B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5A), “acting as a child minder” must be construed in accordance with section 79A of that Act.’.
No. 180, in schedule 3, page 43, line 23, at end insert—
‘(5C) The exercise of any function of the following is a regulated activity relating to children—
(a) officer of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service;
(b) Welsh family proceedings officer (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Children Act 2004).’.
No. 181, in schedule 3, page 44, line 6, after ‘(3),’ insert ‘(5C),’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in schedule 3, page 44, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
This is a simple amendment. I am interested in the Minister’s view on this aspect of the Bill. As the Committee knows, schedule 3 defines regulated activity under the Bill, and paragraph 2 of the schedule states that there are exclusions to monitoring for activities relating to employment. It excludes from monitoring those who are involved specifically in the
“care for or supervision of a child in the course of his employment”.
However, paragraph 3 states that that exemption does not apply to a child who has not attained the age of 16. It is possible that I have not interpreted the schedule correctly because it seems rather counter-intuitive. There are one or two double negatives in those two paragraphs.
However, under the Bill as drafted, if a person was employing someone under the age of 16, that person could be open to the need to be monitored. Will the Minister clarify how the provision may affect children? We need to tease that out because I am not sure that the Government intended to legislate in such a way or, if that is their intention, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could outline what effect the provision may have on the employment opportunities of those young, budding paper boys and girls who rely on the money that they receive as a source of income. I should welcome his comments.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall certainly come back to that point and give the hon. Lady a clear answer. I shall need a moment to think about it.
Paragraph 2(2) and (3) of the schedule provide that individuals will be engaged in regulated activities if they principally care for, train, supervise, give guidance to or treat children under the age of 16 during the child’s employment. If those people have the particular role of caring as a chaperone for an actor who is under 16 years, for example, they will fall within a regulated activity.
The aim of amendment No. 117 is to ensure that, when individuals are frequently teaching, training or otherwise working closely with children aged 16 or 17 during their employment, they are also engaged in a regulated activity, which brings with it a requirement for the employer to check their status before permitting them to engage in such activity. The amendment is not appropriate. The provisions under schedule 3 provide a careful balance between protecting children and not discouraging employers from offering work with children due to the burdens involved in checking the staff.
Requiring checks on those working with 16 and 17-year-old employees may be particularly damaging to school leavers who are trying to earn a living. Generally, people who work with 16 and 17-year-olds do not make a choice to work with children and do not have the same duty of care.

Maria Miller: I wish to be clear. It is a bit of a complex area for some reason, but if children aged 14 or 15 years are employed by their corner shop to deliver newspapers, will the newspaper shop owner whogives the papers to them in the morning need to put himself forward to be monitored? If not, why is paragraph 2(3)(a) of schedule 3 in the Bill?

Parmjit Dhanda: I do not believe that the employment by newsagents of paper boys will come within the Bill’s provisions. It is not a regulated activity—it is not a case of one-to-one interaction between the employer and the paper boy. We would also have to consider the frequency. Nevertheless, though the point is a technical one, it is well made. There may well be issues about that and it is probably best if I write to the hon. Lady to flesh it out.
Nevertheless, we do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. Schedule 3 provides a careful balance between protecting children and not discouraging employers from offering work to 16 and 17-year-olds. Let us suppose that hon. Members’ concerns relate to army instructors of 16 and 17-year-olds. In that case, schedule 4 already allows employers to check the status of individuals who frequently teach, train, care for, or otherwise work closely with under-18s who are employed in the armed forces.
We shall continue to work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that there is sufficient awareness in the armed forces of the requirements on child protection, and to ensure that support and advice are given on such issues during implementation of the Bill. I believe that the Bill takes the right approach on the issues and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment. Having said that, I shall examine the point that she made on newsagents employing paper boys.

Maria Miller: I am heartened that the Minister will do that. The Bill appears to say clearly that there will need to be monitoring of people who care for or supervise a child, or who do so in the course of their employment, and paragraph 2(3) clearly states that the exclusions do not apply in the case of children who have not yet reached the age of 16. Children or people entering employment will receive instruction during the course of that employment, or may be in their employer’s care, whether they are a newspaper boy or girl or anybody else in the relevant age group. If I were an employer, I would have great concerns, and if the Bill indeed implied that children of 14 or 15 would need to be in the care of somebody who was monitored during employment, it would put me off employing someone in that age group.
Based on the Minister’s remarks this evening, it seems that that would be a wholly unintended consequence of the Bill. As somebody who employed people for 17 years—albeit perhaps not of that age—such a consequence would cause me concern, so I am pleased that the Minister will examine the matter further. When he does, perhaps he will put himself in the position of an employer reading the Bill, and ensure that it is amended to clarify the point for employers.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 182, in schedule 3, page 45, line 45, at end insert—
‘(ma) a deputy appointed in respect of a child under section 16(2)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005;’.
No. 183, in schedule 3, page 46, line 17, at end insert—
‘( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(k), a person is the operator of a database if he—
(a) establishes or maintains the database, or
(b) otherwise, exercises any function in relation to the management or control of the database.’.
No. 184, in schedule 3, page 46, line 31, at end insert—
‘ A person who is part of a group in relation to which another (P) engages in regulated activity relating to children does not engage in regulated activity only because he assists P or does anything on behalf of or under the direction of P which, but for this paragraph, would amount to engaging in regulated activity relating to children.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Madeleine Moon: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in schedule 3, page 47, line 11, at end insert
‘or any other establishment which is exclusively or mainly for people who are entitled to community care services.’.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 130, in schedule 3, page 47, line 13, after adults, insert
‘or any other establishment which is exclusively or mainly for people who are entitled to community care services.’.
Amendment No. 104, in schedule 3, page 47, line 35, at end insert—
‘(ba) a day centre providing more than six hours per day of provision for vulnerable adults and operating two or more days per week,’.
Government amendments No. 185 and 186.

Madeleine Moon: I promise not to keep the Committee long. I will endeavour to be as brief as I can.
It has been said during today’s debate that people who are abuse are clever. In fact, in my experience, abuse often arises from ignorance, and more specifically from institutionalised bad practice. The two probing amendments in my name would cover establishments that are not currently regulated and do not have specific standards set for them. In particular, I wish to include organisations and establishments where there are opportunities for staff to set their own standards of practice in working with client groups, appearing to make life easier for staff but in fact allowing institutionalised abuse to become normal practice due to a lack of training, supervision and skills.
The probing amendments would extend the range of establishments defined as providing regulated activities covered by the Care Standards Act 2000. As the Bill stands, day care establishments in particular do not appear to be covered. The definition should be extended to such establishments, at which vulnerable people would otherwise not receive protection.

Annette Brooke: I will also endeavour to be brief. Amendment No. 104 is a probing amendment. It comes from practical experience, but I suspect that amendments Nos. 129 and 130 approach the problem in a much more satisfactory manner. I tabled the amendment, plucking hours and days out of a hat. When my father was elderly, I was encouraged to keep him in his own home. He went to a church day centre, with which I had no problems or worries, for up to six hours a day. He went to the stroke club one afternoon a week; again, I had no problems and knew everybody. He also went to a local authority day centre two days a week. They were very kind and carried out a great deal of personal care, and I was horrified to see that such a centre seems to be excluded from the Bill.
Equally, I have visited many training establishments and day centres for adults with learning disabilities and feel that they should fall within the Bill. I can see that the wording is much better in amendments Nos. 129 and 130, which I hope the Minister will support. I have practical experience of different types of day centre for elderly people, and it is crystal clear that some need regulation because it is possible for someone who is doing the cooking, for instance, to befriend vulnerable elderly people.

Ivan Lewis: It is a pleasure finally to get to my feet after sitting for so long.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) on her probing amendments and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on her constructive contribution. It is difficult to get the definition of day care right, and I shall try to explain why I think the Bill gets it about right, despite the understandable reservations that have been expressed.
I shall speak first to amendments No. 129 and 130. They seek to define day care in terms of an establishment in the same way that elsewhere we have defined care homes, but the term “day care” covers a wide range of very different types of services provided to old and disabled people, as has been acknowledged. It can be provided in a variety of ways: by a local authority or voluntary sector provider, a private sector organisation or local faith group, for example. Because of the disparate nature of day care services, we do not believe that seeking a definition based purely on setting works. We have therefore tried to capture “day care” in the Bill by identifying it in terms of activity rather than in terms of a specific establishment. I reassure hon. Members that the definition of regulated activity already includes those working in day care settings whose responsibilities include the provision of care, supervision, training, assistance, advice or any other activity listed under paragraph 5(1) of part 2 of schedule 3.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 seek to achieve their aim by defining day care as an establishment for people who are entitled specifically to community care services. Community care services are those services provided to or commissioned by the local authorities defined in the relevant 1990 Act. We have already made provision for all posts within this sector to come within the scope of the scheme. The Bill provides that all posts within community care services which are not covered by the bar but which give the opportunity for contact with those receiving services or access to records will be covered by “controlled activity”. That means that all staff working in local authority-provided day care settings but who are not undertaking regulated activity will still be subject to vetting processes under the new scheme.
It will be up to individual employers to decide whether to employ a barred person in a job involving controlled activity. When an employer takes a decision to engage a barred person in a controlled activity, we shall obviously expect extra safeguards to be put in place. We are currently looking at the most appropriate mechanism for the enforcement of the requirements related to controlled activity. Extra safeguards are likely to include additional supervision of a barred person which prevents him or her from having the opportunity for unsupervised contact with those individuals attending the day care group.
I hope that to some extent what I have said provides some reassurance. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that we need to give greater detail about what the safeguards may be to allay their concerns.
I deal now with amendment No. 104, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It raises similar issues. Under the Bill, the definition of a regulated activity includes inspection functions carried out by those bodies listed in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) of part 2 of schedule 3. This is to ensure that those individuals with responsibility for inspecting an establishment, agency, person or body which provides any form of care, treatment or therapy for vulnerable adults are subject to the bar and will need to be checked and subject to monitoring. Sub-paragraph (7) lists establishments, agencies and so on which are subject to inspection by the relevant listed regulatory bodies.
As hon. Members know—this is a legitimate topic for debate but not necessarily in the context of the Bill—day care is not currently regulated under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000. Very often, as hon. Members have said, day care is provided in a community setting where a range of other activities takes place. As such, it would be very difficult to define day care in terms of an establishment or an agency appropriate for inspection by the Commission for Social Care Inspection. I accept that the nature of inspection and regulation of day care is not a closed debate, but I do not think it appropriate to deal with it under the Bill.
Government amendment No. 185 is a minor, technical amendment relating to the definition of regulated activity in terms of vulnerable adults. It would bring the functions of the chief executive and other members of the IBB within the definition of “regulated activity” in relation to vulnerable adults. Its omission was an oversight, and I am sure that all Committee members will accept that it is a common-sense amendment.
Finally, Government amendment No. 186 is identical in its application to vulnerable adults to amendment No. 184 in relation to children, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has already spoken. It specifically ensures that, where an activity is carried out by a member of a group of vulnerable adults and possibly others on behalf of or under the direction of an individual engaged in regulated activity with the group, the group member will not be engaged in a regulated activity. For example, it would ensure that where residents of a care home provide help and assistance to other residents of that care home, they will not be required to be subject to monitoring and the care home would not be required to check their status. Again, it is not a simple or easy issue but, I hope, a common-sense outcome.
I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole not to press her amendment, and I urge the Committee to support the Government amendments.

Madeleine Moon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 185, in schedule 3, page 47, line 46, at end insert
‘( ) The exercise of the functions of a member or the chief executive of IBB is a regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults.’.
No. 186, in schedule 3, page 47, line 46, at end insert—
‘( ) A person who is part of a group in relation to which another (P) engages in regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults does not engage in regulated activity only because he assists P or does anything on behalf of or under the direction of P which, but for this sub-paragraph, would amount to engaging in regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults.’.—[Mr. Ivan Lewis.]
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Seven o’clock till Thursday 13 July at Nine o’clock.